Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 8 Feb 91 02:02:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 8 Feb 91 02:02:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #132 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: I-CON X (Robin Curtis will appear!) Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible? Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 3 Feb 91 15:41:48 GMT From: att!cbnewsj!cbnewsi!bicker@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Subject: I-CON X (Robin Curtis will appear!) References: <1991Jan31.220059.23958@cbnewsi.att.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu This just in... Robin Curtis, Saavik in the Star Trek Film Series will be appearing at I-CON X! I - C O N X The East Coast's Largest Convention of Science Fact, Fiction, and Fantasy April 19-21, 1991 State University, Stony Brook, Long Island, NY Special Guest: Majel Barret Number One, Nurse Chapel, Lwaxana Troi, and the voice of the computer on Star Trek Special Guest: Robin Curtis Saavik on Star Trek Special Guest: Tom Baker* Doctor Who Guest-of-Honor: Dan Simmons Author of the Hugo Award winning novel Hyperion Special Guest: Harlan Ellison Other SF, Fantasy & Horror Guests: Poul Anderson, Jim Frenkel, Joan D. Vinge, Larry Niven, Fred Pohl, Jack Williamnson. Roger MacBride Allen, Jim Baen, Ian and Betty Ballantine, Hal Clement, Tom Doherty, Robert L. Forward, Raymond Z. Gallun, Barry Malzberg, James Morrow, Thomas Monteleone, Pamela Sargent, John Skipp, Craig Spector, Bruce Sterling, Keil Stuart, Tom Weisskopf, George Zebrowski, David Kyle, Tracy Hickman, Patricia Kennealy, Nancy Springer, Margaret Weiss, and more... Science Guest-of-Honor: Robert L. Forward Science and Technology Special Guests: Deke Slayton Mercury and Apollo Astronaut (currently negotiating with a Russian cosmonaut as well) Gaming Guest-of-Honor: Ken Rolston Co-creator of Paranoia Gaming Special Guest: Gary Gygax (Creator of Dungeons & Dragons) Gaming Special Guest: Steve Jackson (Developer of GURPS) Other Gaming Guests: Greg Costikyan, Jahn Faughnan, Stefan Jones, and more... Artist Guests: Jill Bauman, Doug Beekman, Tom Kidd, Ron Walotsky, and Gahan Wilson. Comics Guests: Micheal Jan Friedman, Bob Greenberger, Fred Hembeck, Steve Saffel, and Julie Schwarz. Films: (To be announced) In addition to the personal appearances, panels and film program, I-CON features an Art Show, Meet the Pros Parties, dealers' rooms, writers' workshops, autograph party, no- minimum-bid auctions, gaming, filksinging, japanimation, model rocketry, gaming tournaments, sneak previews of upcoming films, videos, stargazing, ... Special Event: I-CON Awards Banquet: Our annual presentation of the Gallun Award. Dinner. Saturday, 5:30pm, $20 additional. Ticket Information: $20 until March 31, 1991 (Children 5-11 years old, $8). $25 at the door (Children 5-11 years old, $10). Children under 12 must be accompanied by a ticketholding adult at all times. I-CON P.O. Box 550 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Please mark on the back of your envelope "USENET Registrant" so that we can get in touch with you if there is to be a USENET party. To be sure of being informed of any USENET activities...send email to me at bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM Hotel List: The CON Hotel is the Holiday Inn in Stony Brook. Accomodations there are available only through the convention: send $69/night/room to the above address, indicating which night(s) you would like accomodations for. Other local area motels are listed below: +o Beacon Motel (516) 265-0602 +o Smithtown Motor Lodge (516) 724-9000 +o Terryville Motor Lodge (516) 928-5900 +o Harborside Inn of Port Jefferson (516) 473-2499 No weapons. For more information, send email to bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM. Please do not call...but if you call, at least leave a phone number so I can get back to you. -- Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 3 Feb 91 21:56:59 GMT From: pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!sousa.enet.dec.com!sndpit.enet.dec.com!smith@decwrl.dec.com (Willie Smith) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Subject: Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Feb2.171625.27535@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, newman@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Bill Newman) writes... >In article <9972@orca.wv.tek.com> doughe@bamboo.CAX.TEK.COM (Douglas E Helbling) writes: >> >> I am working toward putting together a robotic competition for small >> rover-like vehicles. The contest would take place on the Oregon >> desert at the Oregon Moonbase, an earth analog of a lunar lavatube. >> The Oregon Moonbase is a project of The Oregon L-5 Society, Inc., a >> chapter of the National Space Society. The robotics competition, >> if it comes to reality, will probably take place in late 1992 or >> early 1993. [...] >> 3) Have the robot navigate the terrain between the surface and the >> interior of the tube; in other words, have it get safely inside. > >This is pushing the capability of current autonomous vehicles (like JPL's >recent arroyo demonstration). I am not familiar with teleoperated rover >technology; maybe this is a bit more feasible for teleoperation. >Having such a hard goal, and adding the later restrictions on size >and power supply, seems a bit ambitious for your first contest. It sounds pretty simple for teleoperated vehicles, though I must admit this depends on some factors I don't quite understand: - how much distance over what kind of terrain are we talking about? If it's less than 1/4 mile over reasonably flat terrain with rocks of less than 6 inches, it won't be any problem for my Waldo teleop vehicle (but that exceeds the original size goal by 50%). - what's a lavatube? Bill Newman has been in one, so it can't be small, but how large is it and what does it look like? Will we need lights to navigate inside it? Does it go down at an angle? > >My suggestions for the contest: > (1) Add some less ambitious goals (e.g. A. travelling >300 meters north over rough terrain, and B. returning to the >starting point). Well, it may be difficult to do this with an autonomous vehicle, but teleoperations makes this pretty easy. I haven't gone this far with a 3-second delay due to radio range limitations, but Waldo ought to have almost a mile range and has a top speed of almost 5 MPH. Willie Smith smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com smith%sndpit.enet.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com {Usenet!Backbone}!decwrl!sndpit.enet.dec.com!smith ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 4 Feb 91 22:08:28 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) Organization: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Subject: Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible? References: <1991Jan24.030338.4153@athena.cs.uga.edu>, <1991Jan31.182145.10405@everexn.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Jan31.182145.10405@everexn.com>, mike@everexn.com (Mike Higgins) writes: > >>My question is, does such equipment really exist? If so, who uses it and > >>for what purposes? > As I recall, most of the > mice subjected to this DIED of pnumonia or other lung complications afterwards. After seeing all of this, I found a real source. A text entitled "Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment" by Knut Schmidt-Nielsen, Cambridge U. Press, devotes a page to liquid breathing. Incidentally, this is a great book for engineers, because it takes a systems engineering approach to life. Anyway, below are a few passages relevant to the discussion. If water is equillibrated with pure oxygen at 8 atm, it will dissolve about 200 ml O2/liter, about the same amount of oxygen as 1 l of normal air. ... we must use a balanced salt solution similar to blood plasma. Complete submersion in oxygen-supersaturated water has been tried with success with both mice and dogs, and the animals have survived for several hours. ... A major drawback to liquid breathing is that water is approximately 50 times more viscous than air, and the work of breathing is correspondingly increased. Another problem is that the normal surfactants that line the lungs are washed away during liquid breathing; this causes no difficulty during the experiment, but after return to air breathing the lungs tend to collapse. A more important limitation on liquid breathing is caused by the need to eliminate carbon dioxide at the same rate as oxygen is taken up. If the pco2 of blood is to be maintained at the normal 40mm Hg, several times as much liquid must be moved in and out of the lungs. [Experiments show] that the carbon dioxide concentration increases greatly. Another approach ... involves ... fluorocarbons. Oxygen is extremely soluble ... the solubility of carbon dioxide is not as great. Such liquids have been tried with animals, which have survived several hours' breathing without complications. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu *** IMAGINE YOUR LOGO HERE ****** Ten thousand low-lifes a day read this space. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 2 Feb 91 17:16:25 GMT From: newman@THEORY.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Bill Newman) Organization: Cornell Theory Center Subject: Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest References: <9972@orca.wv.tek.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <9972@orca.wv.tek.com> doughe@bamboo.CAX.TEK.COM (Douglas E Helbling) writes: > > I am working toward putting together a robotic competition for small > rover-like vehicles. The contest would take place on the Oregon > desert at the Oregon Moonbase, an earth analog of a lunar lavatube. > The Oregon Moonbase is a project of The Oregon L-5 Society, Inc., a > chapter of the National Space Society. The robotics competition, > if it comes to reality, will probably take place in late 1992 or > early 1993. > .. > The basic goals of the contest: > > 1) Demonstrate the feasibility of usings small, relatively inexpensive > robotic vehicles on productive off-planet missions. > > 2) Provide a forum for academic and industrial robotic enthusiasts to > meet and exchange ideas and information. > > 3) Further demonstrate the feasibility of lavatubes as useful for the > eventual proliferation of humans in lunar and martian settlement. > > The basic goals of the robots in the contest: > > 1) Deploy (from contained) a robot in the proximity of a lavatube. A somewhat vague goal. > 2) Send the robot out to locate a lavatube (or a specific lavatube > among several at the site). This is a job probably better done from orbit. > 3) Have the robot navigate the terrain between the surface and the > interior of the tube; in other words, have it get safely inside. This is pushing the capability of current autonomous vehicles (like JPL's recent arroyo demonstration). I am not familiar with teleoperated rover technology; maybe this is a bit more feasible for teleoperation. Having such a hard goal, and adding the later restrictions on size and power supply, seems a bit ambitious for your first contest. > 4) Have the robot reach a particular location within one or more of > the lavatubes, said location to be marked by concentrated metal > (tin foil) or mineral deposit (powdered sugar) markings detectable > with some form of simple sensor capability. As above, only more so. > > The framework for the contest currently allows for four categories: > > Category One: Autonomous (non-telemetry) Operation, Custom Hardware > > Essentially, this is for self-contained rovers of unique > physical construction. > > Category Two: Autonomous Operation, Off-the-Shelf Hardware > > This is for self-contained rovers of commercially available design > (hobbyist or pro), with custom programming to meet the objectives > of the contest and the site. > > Category Three: Remote Operated Operation Custom Hardware > > This is for remote-operated rovers of custom design. > > Category Four: Remote Operated Operation, Off-the-shelf Hardware > > This is for remote-operated rovers of commercially available design. Why build in the distinction between custom and standard hardware? The lunar rover is unlikely to be off-the-shelf, and putting arbitrary limits (size and power supply) on the entrants eliminates most off-the-shelf designs from competition anyway. My suggestions for the contest: (1) Add some less ambitious goals (e.g. A. travelling 300 meters north over rough terrain, and B. returning to the starting point). But I've been in a number of lava tubes, and I think that most of them would be hard to get into with little battery-powered rovers: my bet is this won't happen before the second half of the decade, unless you have a very tame lava tube in mind. (2) Open the contest to larger and internal-combustion- -powered prototypes (which can be scaled down later using technologies which are currently too expensive for prototypes). Amateurs might want to use wire-wrapped boards, single-sided PCB's, or off-the-shelf controllers, and surplus or at least standard motors and machinery. Any lunar mission would use custom IC's and machinery (so many things need to be redesigned for vacuum and extreme temperatures, and launch costs would probably exceed fabrication costs) and could be much smaller. A prototype which was 'way too large and used an internal combustion engine would still be a nice step toward a lunar rover if it could accomplish your goals. (at least as long as it did them without using Earth's atmosphere to fly..) (3) I second the suggestion that 3-second teleoperation delay should be included. Get rid of the standard/custom categories, which seem irrelevant to the goal of lunar explorer prototyping, and instead make these 4 categories: teleoperated class 0 (operators are allowed to wander around and inspect and watch their machine and the terrain directly, instead of relying entirely on the machine's observations), teleoperated class 1 (operators must rely completely on machine's observations), teleoperated class 2 (like class 1 but with 3-second control delay), and autonomous. (4) Some solutions might require a lot of time, e.g. to recharge batteries with solar cells or to use a medium-powered computer to build up a map from a large number of visual observations. Make it clear how much time the contestants will be allowed. (As much as possible, I hope!) Good luck, however you decide to do it. Bill Newman newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #132 *******************